Moving to ...

Moved to Pressing For Truth In seeking truth, one does not find it by these immature and primitive methods. See RULES FOR COMMENTS (Right Sidebar)

Search This Blog

FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Global Warming Questionable: Climate Changes in Cycles

Note: This is part of an ongoing debate with a neo-atheist called Brian and absolute believer in all science, junk or not. I respect Brian as a person but I can not respect his double standards and his logical fallacies that he uses to give "proof" for his point of view.

Just today we have another scientist who denies the conclusions of the almighty United Nations group. This again throws theories of man causing critical global warming out both windows and then a drop of 10 stories to the street below!

Here is Brian's statement:
Those that do sloppy or biased science are eventually weeded out. So when a majority of climatologists say climate change is real and it's man made, you can bet that there was a lot of double checking ofeach others work and disappointment when a competitors work was verified instead of disproving it.

Reference here:

This is quoted here under the fair use doctrine

Climate models go cold

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
Getty Images

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
David Evans, Financial Post · Apr. 8, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 8, 2011 9:25 AM ET
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let's set a few things straight. The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three -so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory -that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade -yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?              
The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government -how exciting for the political class!
Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold -in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you've been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not worth doing much about.
- David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia's carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

Have you been conned? If so, could you be conned in other areas of your life?

Have a good!

1 comment:

  1. Several things about this article. I have seen it criticized because David Evans is not a climatologist.

    My Answer: Don't you think that someone who has 6 degrees, is a mathematician and engineer might be able to read the information and figure out any scientific jargon and come up with a better conclusion than you or I?

    I am not a climatologist, even though I have had courses in climatology and microclimatology, but for some reason I never had trouble looking at tables of data from various weather stations and analyzing it.

    For Those Who are Adamant that Earth is Getting Warmer: What is your response to this?

    I have been told that most meterological stations are at or near airports due to the critical nature of knowing whether the weather is suitable to fly in or not.

    Usually airports are a mile or two out of the urban area. It is here where it was noticed that temperatures were getting warmer and warmer over time. This I understand is when the theories and panic ensued.

    Later, some scientists realized that the bubble of warm air which surrounds every urban area had extended to include the airports as the city grew.

    These observant scientists then went to the radiosonde temperature data taken from the ascension of balloons at various locations. No evidence was found of any warming trend.

    At that point the world had already been alarmed by Mr. Gore and others that something must be done or many cities including New York would be under water as polar ice caps melted.

    Some scientists who were alarmed at first realized that they had been had by a simple error and became deniers. The emotion was so much in a panic mode that their voices were basically silenced.

    If anyone has solid information about this idea please let me know. I believe it because it makes absolute logical sense. Sometimes simple things are overlooked which can change the whole picture. However I am most willing to look at any information on either side of this issue.


Sorry about this but to prevent vicious little bots from posting nasty stuff, we need moderation of comments. Thanks for your understanding.